What does it mean to "only use the faucet on the long term"?

For example, the hard limitations imposed by the system is that one can use the faucet at most 15 times a day, claiming 300 satoshi each time, and two requests must be at least a few minutes apart.
This is a a concrete and unambiguous statement.
Can you give a similar concrete explanation for "only using the faucet on the long term"?

@yahoo62278

Thanks for the advice, it's true that I shouldn't gamble.

I am asking about the faucet because it is a feature of the site that I don't fully understand yet.
It seems that there is indeed some ambiguity on the rules.
Don't you think it would interesting to clarify that?

I see.
How about the following setting then:
One plays with the faucet and wins 0.003BTC, after that deposits an additional 0.003BTC, and places another bet for 0.006BTC.
If the last bet is successful, is the player allowed to withdraw ? 

I guess I missed point 14.4.
Let me try to understand.
Say one opens an account, deposits 0.001BTC, loses that amount, then continues to play using the faucet and wins 0.003BTC.
Is the player allowed to withdraw the 0.003BTC or not?

A few days ago I opened an account with bitsler.
I did not make any deposits, but I was lucky enough to win 0.003 BTC just by playing the faucet.
However, when I tried to withdraw the amount, my request was declined and my balance was reset.

I guess bitsler has some policy that one is not allowed to profit from the faucet ?
If so, bitsler should state clearly the rules of using the faucet.
Advertising a faucet, without mentioning such a serious limitation sounds like a false advertisement to me.

The faucet-bot no longer works.

Still not possible to withdraw.
Good that I did not deposit much.

I have the same problem: I cannot withdraw 0.005 BTC.
I have send an email to support and waiting to hear from them.

I think you can use Chernoff bounds for that, check wikipedia.   

I see, so the bonus is indeed 9 times your stake.

I am also a bit puzzled by the edge percentage.
My calculations give a different percentage.
Here is what I understand:

Say the house has an edge of x% (in our case, x = 0.91).
Suppose I have 1BTC, and I make a single bet of that amount.
Then the expected amount I have after the bet *should* be
1 - x/100 = 0.9909 BTC     (*)

Let's now compute the expected amount I have after the bet.
Say my bet has payout factor 2, i.e., the win chance is 49.50%.

If we ignore the jackpot bonus, the expected amount after the bet is
2*0.4950 = 0.99
(if I win I have 2 BTC, if I lose I have none) 
 
Jackpot occurs with probability 1/10000, and if it occurs, it results
in an additive bonus of k times the amount bet (n our case k = 8, I believe).
Thus the expected bonus in my 1BTC bet is
1*k/10000.

Combining the above two we get that the expected total amount I have after the bet is
0.99 + k/10000.
(I can add the two, because of the linearity property of expectation.)

For the above  amount to be equal to 0.9909 BTC (as we expect from (*))
it must be that
k = 9.

In particular, this means that if the outcome of the bet is a jackpot then
- If I had bet high, then my balance after the bet should be 11BTC (i.e., profit of 10BTC)
- If I had bet low, then my balance after the bet should be 9BTC (i.e., a profit of 8BTC)

If the above is correct then I think that the value for the multiplier k that is used
currently (k=8?) is lower than the one that would result in the advertised house edge.

Please let me know if I have messed up something.

Regards.   

Here is a suggestion for an ongoing competition (inspired by the billionth-bet competition):

Every bet whose ID is a multiple of 1,000,000 wins a bonus equal to the amount bet (maybe up to some maximum, or something like that).

I would expect that the amount given away should be negligible for the site: it already gives away 8 times the amount bet every 10,000 bets roughly, with the jackpot feature.
However, unlike jackpot, this would require some skill.

Regards.

I would be interested in computing some statistics on Mateo's play.

Could you please make available the data for his bets ?
If not, could you just tell me now many bets he placed, and how many of them were winning bets?
If I remember well, all his bets had probability of winning 0.4950, no?

If it turns out that his winning streak was extremely unlikely,
then it is possible that he was exploiting some bug in the site's code?

If I understand well, all people in this forum, even dooglus and stunna are anonymous, in the sense that other users do not know their real names.
If this is true, then I sort of understand DiceBitcoin's decision to not reveal the name of their employee (assuming there is one).
If he did, then the anonymity of the owners of DiceBitcoin would be jeopardised.
So, I do not find anything suspicious in their decision to not tell the employee.

I assume one can ask a similar question about pvp:
In theory, is it possible that the owner of the site plays pvp as a regular player,
but learns the opponent's seed before choosing a seed for himself?

I have a, probably naive, question:

In sites like dicebitco.in, where almost all of bankroll consists of players' investments,
what prevents the owner of the site from playing (as a player) against the site,
and winning big amounts -- I assume the owner has access to the random seeds, no?

Thank you.

Not sure I understand your point, MICRO.

My impression is that primedice3 is no longer just a high-low dice game.
It is a new type of game, that requires a strategy.
The rules of the game were set, and and the players decided their strategy.
It may be that the strategy of some players is to risk losing some money
at the beginning expecting to recover later.
Changing the rules in the middle of the game does not seem right to me.

Having said that, I understand it is possible that the rules may need to change
if the game is not sustainable. But then should't just the site issue an apology,
instead of accusing the players for doing what the rules allowed them to do?

I really do not get your point MICRO.

Hi,

First I would like to thank Stunna and his team for Primedice3.
It has been a great source of entertainment for me, so far.

I would like to ask Stunna to clarify what is the proper way of using the faucet, so that it is not considered abusive.
In particular, is there a limitation on how often one should access the faucet, other than the once-per-minute limitation.
Or, are there any restrictions on what one should do with the money it gets from the faucet?
Also, is there only one account allowed per (physical) person / household / machine / IP?

I believe these things should be stated very precisely (and carefully), because of the nature of gambling games.
A rational player would do whatever is allowed by the rules to maximize its revenue.
If the rules are flowed, then players *will* exploit them.
Players play against the house which has an advantage over them, so one cannot expect that they will feel sympathy for the house

If I understand well, based on the current rules, it is in the payer's best interest to do the following:

- First, spend some time/money to increase its faucet, by increasing its wagered amount.
I think that, in expectation, one needs to spends an mount of X in order to increase its wagered amount by 100X.

- After that, the player should keep accessing the faucet, and send all the money it gets to a second account (either by tipping, or by pvp-ing with that account with manual seeds.)

- If the player wants to feel the "thrill" of betting, it is in his best interest to pvp with other players instead of playing against the house.
As pvp is a zero-expectation game, a player will not win any money by pvp-ing, in expectation, but it will not lose any either, unlike when it plays against the house.

To conclude, I think that the Primedice team should rethink some of the design aspects of their game.
However, I agree that any changes should respect the effort/money players have spent to increase their faucets.

Please let me know if I have misunderstood something.

Best Regards.

PS. About the player who won 3BTCs by investing just 0.02BTCs, I think that the chances of that happening (using a single bet) is roughly 1 out of 150, so it is probably not that unlikely.. by still impressive